Because senior politicians and a very famous pop star are apparently on the guest list. Although letting the police, the NSPCC and the investigative journalists just get on with the investigation would seem to be the best course of action.

Because senior politicians and a very famous pop star are apparently on the guest list. Although letting the police, the NSPCC and the investigative journalists just get on with the investigation would seem to be the best course of action.

A list compiled by who ? should cameras be shoved in the face of people based upon unsubstantiated rumour , or should police investigate a case and act according to the facts ?

And the media need to think and tread very carefully, go shoving cameras in peoples faces and making accusations which are broadcast to the country could jeapordise any future trial should that person be charged. I would far rather know nothing now if that is how it has to be if it means the right people stand trial at a later date when enough is found to charge them. Instead of people not facing trial as a fight for viewing figures means they cannot be charged.

My thirst for news comes way down the list when it comes to correct and fair procedure and justice for a victim.

A list compiled by who ? should cameras be shoved in the face of people based upon unsubstantiated rumour , or should police investigate a case and act according to the facts ?

A list that was found with one of the former owners / person who ran the guest house, that's who, along with times, photos and other private information.

Ah, yes, because they carried out their investigation fully when they raided the Elms House in the 1980's and were warned some "high profile people could be inside", they were also watching the house and had undercover police officers inside, and yet nothing ever came of it even though they had personally witnessed abuse being carried out by guilty parties.

What about those facts? We should all of a sudden sit back and let the powers that be carrying out their investigation? They need to be held to account, the people need to push and push before it all gets swept under the carpet once again to protect more high profile abuse, because you can be rest assured this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mary Moss is certainly correct when she said the original investigation went no where because of the high profile names involved, who stretched and collaborated with higher members in society in a disgusting perverted web of cruelty and abuse.

A list that was found with one of the former owners / person who ran the guest house, that's who, along with times, photos and other private information.

Ah, yes, because they carried out their investigation fully when they raided the Elms House in the 1980's and were warned some "high profile people could be inside", they were also watching the house and had undercover police officers inside, and yet nothing ever came of it even though they had personally witnessed abuse being carried out by guilty parties.

What about those facts? We should all of a sudden sit back and let the powers that be carrying out their investigation? They need to be held to account, the people need to push and push before it all gets swept under the carpet once again to protect more high profile abuse, because you can be rest assured this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then it should be investigated by the police, are you aware that a person could avoid a trial if it is deemed said trial would not be a fair one. Too much media scrabbling could see that happen.

The police have all the evidence - witness statements, what their own officers witnessed inside the guest house, the work of their own original investigation, photos, times etc, dozens of abused children now adults.

I was referring to the list, whom names people who are mostly all dead except politicians and a few pop stars and 1-2 other people in other professions. :rolleyes:

But yes, as I have always said throughout this thread if you had been following all should be brought to account.

Naming and shaming isn't about bringing people to account or anything to do with justice which is my point. I don`t get why celebrities should be exposed in tabloid newspapers or on blogs for that matter or on the news before a trial.

Because senior politicians and a very famous pop star are apparently on the guest list. Although letting the police, the NSPCC and the investigative journalists just get on with the investigation would seem to be the best course of action.

( pardon another long post ) MWT has been particularly vocal on twitter today about changes needed.

Has he ever said why/how he left the police force? whether he was made redundant, fired or chose to leave? he seems particularly vocal about whats wrong with the system but I can't help but wonder what his background is?. Maybe its bad of me to wonder but I do get a little curious when I see him being so vocal and sceptical - it makes me wonder what his ex-colleagues think of him now, if he's seen publically as having many issues with the system? he's tweeted about writing to various judges etc. to request changes to sentences among many other things.

I'm not saying he's wrong about the things he criticises, im just curious - maybe he left on principle because he was disillusioned with how things were run? most sites I've seen that mention him just say, at most, that he left the Surrey police force in 2008 to bring his investigative journalism skills to broadcasting and is a child protection expert - does being a detective equate to being a journalist?. I wonder when I see multiple tweets in the same day complaining so fervently about things - if he's such an expert then can't he help to bring about these changes they apparently really need? maybe im unfair, I don't know. It seems maybe a little strange to have had a good career as a detective and choose to end it to turn to what I gather is mainly freelance work, working on a few TV shows and offering to do speeches at events etc.? surely there's a more stable income available in the police force?.

On the other hand again though, maybe its more noble if he really didn't like how things were run, if he chose to take a more risky route and leave to be able to be more vocal away from officially working in the force?. I don't know what to make of him sometimes... opinion has seemed divided here too?.

It really isn't. Its more akin to having a healthy scepticism about the daily fail.

I have a healthy sceptism about posters with more than one identity. For example, I notice that a 'jake patterson' has joined recently. (GD thread about racism he has started.) That is a very, very similar name to someone else.

I am not saying that either or all of of these people are you even though you have ceased to post although no longer 'inactive'.

We all have suspicious minds on occasion which as you say is healthy enough. It does not prove or disprove anything.

I have a healthy sceptism about posters with more than one identity. For example, I notice that a 'jake patterson' has joined recently. (GD thread about racism he has started.) That is a very, very similar name to someone else.

I am not saying that either or all of of these people are you even though you have ceased to post although no longer 'inactive'.

We all have suspicious minds on occasion which as you say is healthy enough. It does not prove or disprove anything.

I thought it was against the rules to start accusing FMs in that way.
You're right, I don't post, because all that this thread is left with are a few obsessives with an unhealthy thirst for one of the sickest subjects there is. The police get paid for dealing with nasty stuff, whats your excuse.